Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Current Water Resource Issues Roanoke River Basin
NORTH CAROLINA DELEGATION
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BI‐STATE COMMISSIONTuesday, September 8, 2015, 12:00 pm
Harold Brady, Division of Water Resources
Outline
• KLRWS IBT Request– Description– Timeline– Statutory Requirements– Findings of Fact– Public Comments
• Current Drought Conditions• IBT Clarification in Session Law 2015‐090 (HB 795)
Requested CertificatePrimary Applicant: Kerr Lake Regional Water SystemSource Basin: RoanokeReceiving Basins: Tar, Fishing Creek, NeuseGrandfathered Allowance: 10 MGD (max day)
Existing transfer (2013 data): 4.64 MGD (avg day/max mth)
Roanoke to Tar: 3.63 MGDRoanoke to Fishing Creek: 0.82 MGDRoanoke to Neuse: 0.19 MGD
Total Requested IBT (2045 Demands): 14.2 MGD (avg day/max mth)
Roanoke to Tar: 10.7 MGDRoanoke to Fishing Creek: 1.7 MGDRoanoke to Neuse: 1.8 MGD
Kerr Lake Regional Water System• Primary Partners
• City of Henderson• City of Oxford• Warren County
• City of Henderson operates WTP
• Water sales to 11 additional communities/water users in Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties
IBT Process § 143‐215.22L(w) Requirements for Coastal Counties and Reservoirs Constructed
by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
II. Applicant prepares environmental document (EA) pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
I. Applicant submits Notice of Intent to file a petition
III. NCDENR publishes a Petition in the NC Register
Public hearing for Petition request
Comments accepted for
30 days following hearing
EMC ISSUES FINAL
DETERMINATION
Adequacy Determinatio
n
NCDENR submits document to State Clearinghouse for
public comment (30-day period)
NCDENR prepares written
response to comments (i.e., hearing officer’s
report)
Issuance of FONSI
Project Timeline
September 2015 Determination by EMC
March 2015 Public Hearing for Petition
March 2015 Petition submitted for Public Comment
January 2015 EA and FONSI submitted to State Clearinghouse
October 2014 Draft EA submitted to DWR
September 2014 Revision of Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model
March/April 2009 Series of Public Meetings
January 2009 NOI Submitted by KLRWS
EMC ‐ Basis for Decision
• § 143‐215.22L (w) Reservoirs Constructed by USACE– (6) “The Commission shall make a final determination whether to grant the certificate based on the factors set out in subsection (k) [Findings of Fact – 9 factors] of this section, information provided by the applicant, and any other information the Commission deems relevant. The Commission shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each factor.”
Findings of Fact• § 143‐215.22L (k) requires the EMC to specifically consider:
1. The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of transfer amount
2. Detrimental effects on the source river basin3. Cumulative effects on the source major river basin of any current or
projected water transfer or consumptive water use 4. Detrimental effects on the receiving basin5. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer6. Use of impounded storage7. Purposes and water storage allocations in a US Army Corps of
Engineers multipurpose reservoir8. Compare the water system service area to the locations of both the
source and receiving basins9. Any other facts or circumstances
Response to Public Hearing Comments
• 235 commenters, including oral and written (delivered by hand, mail, and email)
• 1,419 petition signatures• 33 comment categories
Primary Public Concerns• Concern about effect on Kerr Lake level
– DENR response: Modeling results support that lake levels will not be noticeably effected by the proposed IBT. Furthermore, USACE manages the reservoir and is responsible for water supply allocations which could potentially affect lake levels.
• EIS should be conducted/EA not adequate– DENR response: Since DENR reached the conclusion of being able to issue a FONSI, and given the exception in G.S. 143‐215.22L(w)(2), it was concluded that an EIS was not required or necessary
• Could lead to transfer of water to Raleigh/Wake Co– DENR response: A condition of the IBT certificate will be that water may not be transferred to water systems that are not listed as co‐applicants on the certificate
NCDMAC Current Drought Conditions
Session Law 2015‐090 (HB 795) IBT Clarification
• Section 7– Environmental Documents. – The Except as provided in this subsection, the definitions set out
in G.S. 113A‐9 apply to this section. The Notwithstanding the thresholds for significant expenditure of public monies or use of public land set forth in G.S. 113A‐9, the Department shall conduct a study of the environmental impacts of any proposed transfer of water for which a certificate is required under this section. The study shall meet all of the requirements set forth in G.S. 113A‐4 and rules adopted pursuant to G.S. 113A‐4. Notwithstanding G.S. 113A‐4(2), the study shall include secondary and cumulative impacts. An environmental assessment shall be prepared for any petition for a certificate under this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes; except that an environmental impact statement shall be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this section. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate under this section shall pay the cost of special studies necessary to comply with Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. An environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to this subsection shall include all of the following: (1) A comprehensive analysis of the impacts that would occur in the source river basin and the receiving river basin if the petition for a certificate is granted. (2) An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including water supply sources that do not require an interbasin transfer and use of water conservation measures. (3) A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed interbasin transfer."
Purpose and Importance of the Bi‐State Commission
• § 77‐91. Commission established; purposes. – There is established the Roanoke River Basin Bi‐State Commission. The
Commission shall be composed of members from the State of North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The purposes of the Commission shall be to:
– (1) Provide guidance and make recommendations to local, state, and federal legislative and administrative bodies, and to others as it deems necessary and appropriate, for the use, stewardship, and enhancement of the water, and other natural resources, for all citizens within the Basin.
– (2) Provide a forum for discussion of issues affecting the Basin's water quantity and water quality and issues affecting other natural resources.
– (3) Promote communication, coordination, and education among stakeholders within the Basin.
– (4) Identify problems and recommend appropriate solutions. – (5) Undertake studies and prepare, publish, and disseminate information
through reports, and in other forms, related to water quantity, water quality, and other natural resources of the Basin. (2002‐177, s. 1.)
